WolfeNotes.com

Planning Commission Drives the Getaway Car

[Update: 11/15/11 – Tom Johnson at NJ Spotlight does a nice job, see: Agency Approves Strategic Growth Plan Without Specifying Where the Growth Will Be – ]

Something truly extraordinary and unprecedented (in my recollection) happened in Trenton today.

The State Planning Commission formally approved – via unanimous votes – the following:

• Resolution No. 2011-06 Approval of Impact Assessment

• Resolution No. 2011-07 Approval of The Statement Of Agreements and Disagreements (SAD) and Statewide Issue Response Team (SWIRT) Report and Completion Of The Cross-Acceptance Process (hit this link for those documents)

• Resolution No. 2011-08 Approval of Draft Final State Development and Redevelopment Plan and Draft Infrastructure Needs Assessment for Distribution and Commencement of Final State Plan Approval

Now the extraordinary part:

1) The Commission voted to approve these three Resolutions WITHOUT the presentation of the draft Plan that was listed on the Commission’s agenda or ANY discussion of the Plan or the other key documents approved (SAD, SWIRT and Infrastructure Needs Assessment);

2)  The Commission voted to approve all three Resolutions PRIOR TO allowing public comment;

3) In the most mind bending and perverse move of all (and that is saying something in light of actions #1-2 above), the Commission approved an Impact Assessment (dated December 21, 2009) SAD and SWIRT that were based on a draft Plan the Commission abandoned. The documents approved had nothing to do with the draft Final Plan they approved!

After the Commission approved the Resolutions, they allowed public testimony, but set a strict, arbitrary, and totally unnecessary 3 minute limit on testimony (only 10 people testified and the hearing adjourned before the 9:30 – 11:30 am hearing time published).

Bait and switch is too kind a description – how can you approve an assessment and cross acceptance Reports from 21 counties on a version of the Plan that no longer exists?

Even Wilma Frey of the moderate NJ Conservation Foundation (NJCF) said that those assessments “had no relevance” to the Christie Strategic Plan and called the Commission’s actions “intellectually dishonest“. (NJCF Executive Director Michele Byers was a member of the SPC for 10 years or more).

Sandy Batty of the Association of NJ Environmental Commissions (ANJEC) raised several concerns, the most important being that the local government officials and environmental commissions she works with had never even heard of the Christie Strategic Plan, never mind had an opportunity to review and comment on it.

Other environmental groups that have worked on State Plan issues for many years offered major criticisms, including the NJ Chapter of  Sierra Club, the American Littoral Society (ALS), and Stonybrook Millstone Watershed Assc.

As I wrote previously, the Christie Plan abandons both the State Plan Policy Map and the Cross Acceptance/Municipal Plan Endorsement process elements of the prior State Plan.

Hundreds of NJ Towns and thousands of residents had spent countless hours in the cross acceptance process, seeking to bring local Master Plans and zoning maps adopted under the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL) in line with the State Plan.

All of that effort now is for naught, as the Christie Strategic Plan just abandoned the cross acceptance process,  as well as the State Plan policy map.

[Update: funny, I don’t ever recall the Legislature adopting amendments to the State Planning Act to make this policy shift:

Traditional statewide land use planning must give way to strategic, action-oriented planning that integrates all relevant State resources. A conscious shift from managing growth to planning for physical change is also required. Coordinated investment will be the foundation for a new model that recognizes market conditions as a significant driver for change. (page 6)

I testified briefly to make a few general points:

• The Christie Strategic Plan abandons all non-market values

Planning, as an intellectual tradition and a profession, is informed by broad non-market values which are rooted in the concept of the public interest.

These values include beauty, fairness/equity, public health, natural resource conservation, and democratic participation in government processes.

Those values are encoded in the APA Code of Professional ethics and embedded in the State Planning Act pursuant to which the State Plan is adopted.

Yet the Christie Plan would replace the State Development and Redevelopment Plan (SDRP) with a singularly economic development oriented Strategic Plan that makes a mockery of non-market planning values and notions of the public interest.

The State Planning Act (SPA) authorizes the State Planning Commission to adopt a State Development and Redevelopment Plan (SDDRP) (see statutory objectives for the SDRP @ § 52:18A-200. ).

The SPA does not authorize or call for a narrow “strategic plan” or economic development strategy the Christie Administration is foisting on the State Planning process.

Of course Governor Christie, as Chief Executive, is empowered to issue Executive Orders and enact his own State Strategic Plan.

But he may not call that Plan the SDRP or hijack the State Planning Commission and the SDRP planning process to do so.

• The Resolutions are a Sham because they Approve Impact and Infrastructure Assessments that were based on the old State Plan. That Plan has been rejected by the Commission and replaced with the Strategic Plan

The Impact Assessment and Infrastructure Assessment documents are dated December 2009 (prior to the Christie Administration, which took office in January 2010).

Since then, the prior version of the State Plan was abandoned, rendering these assessments meaningless.

The State Planing Commission is now misleading the public by creating a false appearance that these prior assessments are based on the entirely different Christie Strategic Plan.

Wilma Frey said it best – this is “intellectually dishonest” (and shabby to boot!).

I addition, although the assessments make findings about reductions in air pollution, and water pollution, conservation of more than 50,000 acres of land, deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, the assessment documents fail to consider or to base those findings on facts in specific and directly relevant DEP functional plans.

The assessments fail to mention or incorporate the laws, policies, and regulations in applicable DEP functional Plans, including federally delegated State Implementation Plan ((air quality); Water Quality Management Plan or the State law mandated Water Supply Master Plan and Global Warming Response Act implementation plan, among others (there is a federal law structure transportation planning process that is ignored as well).

Worse, the Christie Plan requires that all State agencies, such as DEP, align their functional plans and program regulations with the Strategic Plan.

At a prior meeting of the State Plan Development Committee, DEP Assistant Commissioner Siekerka called this alignment process the “deconflicting” of DEP regulations.

Working in concert with the DEP proposed waiver rule, the State agency alignment process has a huge potential to represent an across the board rollback of DEP regulations, and result in violations of state and federal laws, which DO NOT recognize the State Planning Act or Christie EO 78. (more to follow specifically on this set of issues).

As I wrote previously, the Christie Plan explicitly criticizes and rejects the DEP WQMP program and Landscape Project Map.

The Landscape Project is one of the few positive developments of the Whitman DEP under Bob Shinn.

To his credit, Shinn emphasized mapping initiatives, cartographic expertise, technology, and development of “geographic information system” (GIS) capabilities at DEP.

The Christie Strategic Plan was supported by NJ Future, NJ Chapter of the American Planning Association (APA), the NJ Farm Bureau (on behalf of “landowners”); and a group called PlanSmart NJ. (more to follow on the NJ APA approval, which I feel is as important and unprofessional as the recent American Psychological Association’s ethics debate about psychologists who supported torture at Guantanamo Bay).

How can the Christie Plan be credible without either a Map or location criteria to apply the policies? How can a professional planner embrace that concept?

A I said before, that’s equivalent to writing the Plan in invisible ink.

[Update: after today’s hearing, I had a brief chance to ask a Ms. Mercer, who delivered the NJ APA testimony and is a former planner with the former  Office of Smart Growth, about the NJ APA review process. I also took strong exception to their support and several statements Ms. Mercer made during our brief conversation. I advised that although I was not a licensed PP, I wanted to open a dialogue to understand how a professional planning organization could possibly have supported the Christie Plan the SPC approved in draft form today.

So, not surprisingly, I just got an email from the  President of NJ APA, taking “some exception to to your recent opinion about our organization’s position”.

I assume this is not targeted at my characterization of their testimony (which I merely said “supported” the Christie Plan), but rather to other controversial issues I raised above.

Without going into that discussion here (as I said, more to follow), let me just say that I am pleased to open a dialogue and for now will post this ink to the NJ APA comments of Nov. 13. – end update]

Here’s a list of defects identified in a press release by NJ Sierra Club:

Violates State Planning Act- The Strategic Plan violates the State Planning Act because the Act calls for natural resource protection, protection of open space, with the environment and public health beings its main goals as we as infill and redevelopment as its priorities.  However the State Strategic Plan trumps growth over our resources. The State Plan itself is supposed to be a balance between growth areas and non growth areas while Strategic Plan is all about growth. Under the State Planning Act the State Plan is supposed to be based on other plans, but under this plan all other agencies plans are trumped by the Strategic Plan in violation of the Act.

Repeals Water Quality Management Rules – Attacks the Water Quality Management rules (WQMR) stating it hinders the ability of municipalities to have economic growth because it limits development in environmentally sensitive areas. Also these plans regulate septic for the first time with a third of New Jersey septic when tested shows levels of pollution from over development makes them more important.

Eliminates Landscape Project – The award winning Landscape Project is being threatened since the Governor wants to eliminate it because it is an important environmental planning tool and can be used to repeal numerous regulations. These regulations include flood hazard, stream buffer rules, sewers, wetlands, Highlands, Pinelands and habitat protections for endangered species.

Weakens Environmental Protections -  Economic considerations are supposed to trump environmental protections and public health. The Plan states that all agencies plans and rules have to promote economic growth even in conflict with the environment. These include coastal rules CAFRA, Wetlands protection and Air Toxic rules. We believe this will also violate laws like the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and even State Planning Act.

Removes Nongrowth  Areas – The State Planning Act prioritizes protecting environmentally sensitive areas and targeting growth for redevelopment while the State Strategic Plan only includes growth areas. The State Planning Act takes input from ‘other plans’, but under the Strategic Plan those plans are subservient to State Strategic Plan. Also the Plan eliminated Planning areas 4 and 5. The Strategic Plan clearly violates the State Planning Act.

Blocks Green Acres Funds – Under this Plan if a town or county wanted to buy a piece of property for open space that was in a growth area they would not be able to get Green Acres funds.  Also if Green Acres itself wanted to buy an important piece property in a growth area they would not be able to purchase it either. Green Acres plan and funding mechanism would be subservient to the State Strategic Plan. Many of our green acres acquisitions was proposed for development and growth areas and this would block those key acquisitions. Under this Plan would not be able to buy property in a growth area, which will have detrimental impact particularly in urban areas.

Weakening Highlands and Pinelands Protections – In the Highlands and Pinelands the ‘existing community areas’ are now growth areas in this Plan promoting development. We believe that the Strategic Plan will be used to promote more development in the Highlands and Pinelands undermining their Master Plans violating both those laws.

Open Space - Preservation of open space and natural resource are based on fee simple acquisition only this Plan does not call for preservation of natural resources through regulation or planning.

Executive Order 78 - Implementation of the plan is already underway before the public has chance to review. This EO takes the power away from the State Planning Commission and gives it to this new group in doing so violates the State Planning Act. Clearly stated this is a continuation of Red Tape Review designed to weaken standards and environmental protections.

Attacks on Labor & Civil Service – The Plan also goes after labor and civil service, which has nothing to do with planning

Super Commission – State Strategic Plan and Executive Order is under the Business Action Center not under any planning agency. This sets up a super commission chaired by the Lieutenant Governor acting as if she is a lobbyist for developers.

Christie Pushes Privatization of Drinking Water, State Parks, & Toxic Site Cleanup

Companies put profits before people, public health, and sound public policy.

[Update 2: 11/18/11 – The NY Times reports that Connecticut Gov. Malloy basically forced the power Co. CEO out over failed storm  response, see: Connecticut utility chief quits after delays in restoring power.

Most of the time, you have to read between the lines to figure out what’s really going on. But once in a while, the door opens a crack, just wide enough to see what’s going on. One thing I found particularly of interest in that regard was the reporting on the underlying economic and political influences and their concerns. It no longer seems necessary too mask the exercise of raw Wall Street economic power on policy decisions – I guess things have gotten so bad that it’s OK to report these things openly. Check this out:

” … although Mr. Butler’s sudden departure might placate some of the company’s critics, the upheaval was likely to unsettle investors just as the company is trying to complete a merger with Nstar, a utility in Massachusetts.

Now who would have thought that Wall Street investors influence an electric utility’s emergency response planning? What investor interest could that be related to? – end update]

Update 1: 11/13/11 – Star Ledger story attempts to drill down on reasons why response was so poor – audit shows JCP& reduced spending on maintenance. But, as usual, they ignore the policy elephants in the room.

The abysmal JCP&L response to the snowstorm power outages produced at least one benefit.[Update: aside from providing another example of more frequent and intense storms that will result from global warming].

It shown a bright light on what happens when government abdicates its essential responsibility and allows a private corporation to make life and death decisions based on profits.

• JCP&L was allowed to decide how many repair crews to deploy, where to deploy them, and when to deploy them.
• JCP&L alone decided how to balance response costs with restoring service.
• JCP&L was allowed to consider their costs and their profits in deciding how and when to respond.

As a result, thousands of homes were without power far longer than necessary –  many for over a week – people died, and businesses lost millions of dollars.

And to add insult to injury, JCP&L will recoup all their costs and even profit from this disaster, as consumers pay for the response in electric bills.

No one at JCP&L was held accountable for their miserable performance – how do you as a utility customer hold JCP&L’s corporate CEO accountable?

These are the kind of things that happen when essential government functions are deregulated and privatized.

But while the storm power outages put these issues front and center, few people realize that the same abuses are happening with public drinking water, parks and toxic site cleanups:

Private companies are being allowed – even encouraged – to put private profits before people, public health, and sound public policy.

Two stories in today’s news perfectly illustrate this set of problems:

First, the NY Times reports that the Coca Cola Corporation – using influence obtained by parks contributions and concessions – blocked a plan to ban bottles at Grand Canyon National Park – see: Parks Chief Blocked Plan for Grand Canyon Bottle Ban:

Stephen P. Martin, the architect of the plan and the top parks official at the Grand Canyon, said his superiors told him two weeks before its Jan. 1 start date that Coca-Cola, which distributes water under the Dasani brand and has donated more than $13 million to the parks, had registered its concerns about the bottle ban through the foundation, and that the project was being tabled.

Coke thought a ban might adversely impact profits and could become a model for many other places.

Instead of a bottle ban, the taxpayers picked up a $300,000 tab as the National Parks Service installed a bottle “filling station”:

In preparation, the park and its contracted concessionaires installed more water “filling stations” for reusable bottles at a cost of about $300,000, according to information provided by the park service to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility

So there it is – this is what we get when we allow corporate interests to dictate public policy: more litter, lower quality park experience, taxpayer costs, and higher corporate profits.

Yet despite these kind of obvious problems, Governor Christie’s recently announced Parks Funding Strategy calls for more private concessions in state parks! (we wrote about some of those issues here)

Second, Tom Johnson at NJ Spotlight reports that the Christie Administration just approved a scheme to allow private water companies to increase rates and profits for infrastructure investments without regulatory review. (see: Water Utilities to Get Paid Faster for Fixing Infrastructure – New mechanism lets utilities pass along costs of routine upgrades to customers — without regualtory review

We wrote about why that fatally flawed policy will fail here: Christie Administration Dodges Water Infrastructure Deficits, Blames Regulatory Oversight

Aside from the financial issues of profits and infrastructure deficits, there are significant public health issues involved that are being ignored.

DEP’s own data show that millions of people drink water polluted by hundreds of toxic chemicals.(see: Filter the Chemical Soup in NJ’s Drinking Water – Available Treatment Could Screen Hundreds of Unregulated Compounds from Taps

Private water companies have under-invested in treatment and maintenance to increase profits.

Private water companies decide where to make investment decisions based on profits, not need or public health impacts.

Installing new water lines to serve new development and upgrading water lines to large populations can be more profitable than installing treatment, repairing old water lines, or maintaining lines to places where population density is low.

Private companies make these life and death decisions – with absolutely no accountability.

You don’t vote on the CEO.

The Corprorate Board rooms where these decisions are made are not transparent and are not open for public participation.

And then there is the privatization of the toxic site cleanup program (see: Mercenaries now fully in charge of toxic site cleanup in New Jersey).

All this stuff is not as visible as a power outage – but what you can’t see can kill you.

The Christie Administration Reaction to DEP and the “Big Map” – Watch it

Getting to the heart of the matter, the Christie State Plan is all about killing the ghost of the “Big Map” – an obsession that is proven by the Plan’s own text:

The intent of the State Plan Policy Map was to give the goals and policies of the State Plan a geographic context. The State Plan Policy Map became a land use regulation tool as a result of the current linkages between the State Plan and the NJ Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) regulations for ―planning areas‖ and ―centers.‖ As a result, insufficient consideration is given to essential local and regional planning priorities such as public facilities, affordable housing and economic growth. A perfect example is that the highly-criticized DEP ―Blueprint for Intelligent Growth (BIG Map)’‖ lives within the current DEP Water Quality Management (WQM) regulations. In cross acceptance, DEP negotiated for revisions to the Policy Map to reflect data relied on in its WQM regulations, seeking to position flawed data (for example, DEP’sLandscape Project) above local and regional planning priorities. (page 18)

The Christie economic development plan simply erases this entire debate by eliminating mapping of environmental features  an denying the science – like the Water Quality Management Planning rules and the DEP’s Landscape Project’s mapping of rare, endangered, and threatened species.

This a corrupt practice akin to writing the policies in invisible ink.

BTW, here’s what the NJ State Planning Act mandates for the State Plan *(and just ask a simple question: how can a plan balance, protect and manage natural resources when it doesn’t know where they are, as depicted on a map?) :

Real Solutions Require Money, Regulation, Development Controls, and Enforcement

[Update: 6/24/12 – the stenographers in the NJ press corps never seem to tire of this crap. Here’s another, also with a cop beat (and hint of  the Bayway refinery is horrible headline to boot):

DEP patrols waters for bayway violators – end]

On Wednesday (October 19), DEP will “spearhead” a “Barnegat Bay Blitz”.

OOOH I just love it when you talk military to me baby!

Sounds important, eh?

But don’t get your hopes up, it’s only a litter cleanup day.

According to another DEP press release flogging the PR monkey for Governor Christie:

This hands-on effort demonstrates the Christie Administration’s continued commitment to restoring Barnegat Bay, which for decades has been subject to increasing ecological stress, much of it related to stormwater pollution. The cleanup will enable local residents and groups to become directly engaged in the Governor’s 10-point comprehensive restoration plan for the bay, which the Governor launched in December 2010.

Perhaps the timing of this event has something to do with Sunday’s critical Star Ledger editorial “NJ must do more to protect Barnegat Bay” which found Governor’s Christie’s plan woefully deficient:

The governor hasn’t faced the fact that this job will be expensive. He is trying to do a cleanup on the cheap. And he’s even blocked the county government from taking helpful steps.

Containing stormwater runoff is a critical part of this effort. But Christie’s plan calls for spending $16 million for upgrades now, and offers up to $100 million in loans over the next decade for towns that want to repair their stormwater systems. At that pace, the job wouldn’t be done for nearly two decades, while damage to the bay continues.

He killed a bill that would have allowed Ocean County to place a fee on developers who are the biggest polluters. This should have been the county’s call. The legislation would only have provided the option. He killed another bill that would have charged a similar fee of households. Either would have guaranteed ongoing funding to pay for pollution fixes.

He also conditionally vetoed a bill that would have set a legal standard for how much overall pollution is allowed in the bay, based on what’s necessary to restore it back to health.

Christie still hasn’t wrestled with limits on development in the Barnegat Bay area, which is the root of this problem. A full moratorium is probably not realistic, but some limits are vital. Much of that work must be done at the local level, with support from the state for purchase of open space.

Believe me, the Ledger editorial offered unwarranted praise and was being gentle with its criticism of the Governor here.

And we’re sure that when the Star Ledger called for the Governor to “do more“, they weren’t talking about litter pickups.

Which brings us to one interesting substantive issue buried in the DEP press release.

DEP inadvertently acknowledged an important point, which provides an opportunity to contrast DEP’s very different responses to statewide problems that share a common cause.

Specifically, DEP acknowledged that trash enters waterways, becoming water pollution known as “floatables”, via the same antiquated storm water systems that carry raw sewage (combined sewer overflows) and storm water pollution:

Much of the trash that will be collected on Wednesday could otherwise ultimately enter the bay through the discharge of stormwater. Stormwater also carries other pollutants such as common lawn fertilizers, automotive fluids and silt that degrade wildlife habitat and water quality in Barnegat Bay and its tributaries.

As we’ve long written here, NJ’s storm water infrastructure is seriously deficient, in need of billions of dollars of investment – a glaring need that has long been ignored.

Finally coming around to this issue, on September 25, 2011, the Star Ledger reported that “EPA: NJ needs $8 billion to fix antiquated sewer systems”

At more than 200 spots like this in New Jersey, outdated sewer systems pour more than 23 billion gallons of raw sewage into the water each year, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

And residents — including those who boat, kayak and fish these waterways — are usually never told when the sewage is flowing, officials say.

It doesn’t take a hurricane for the sewers to surge. Even small rainfalls can cause a dirty cocktail of bacteria to spew from 224 nondescript pipes that are mostly in northern New Jersey, EPA says, posing a serious health risk to anyone who touches the water.

Frustrated by the state’s lack of progress, the federal agency is pressuring the Christie administration to fix the long-standing problem, which EPA estimates could cost more than $8 billion.

Both the garbage (floatables) and the raw sewage and other pollution are carried by the same deficient storm water systems.

Both EPA and DEP require controls on the floatables, but do little to correct the CSO raw sewage and other pollutants.

For example, there are EPA approved DEP “floatables action plans” plans for NY Harbor Complex and Raritan Bay.

But CSO permit requirements are weak and outdated CSO control plans are shelved and unfunded.

So, let’s compare the DEP’s litter/floatables response with the tougher and far more important problem of CSO and stormwater controls.

• Litter pickups are cheap, voluntary, and ruffle no feathers in the business community.
• Litter pickups provide great press, but have little impact and thus create a false appearance of environmental initiative.

In contrast, CSO and storm water pollution controls are exactly the opposite:

• they cost real money,
• are imposed via regulation,
• aggravate business, and
• make real progress on improving environmental quality.

Which is exactly why the Christie Administration ignores them and pulls PR stunts like the “Barnegat Bay Blitz”.

Governor Christie and DEP Commissioner Bob Martin have claimed that we can’t afford investments in urban parks and Trenton’s historical legacy, including, among many others, Capital State Park, Petty’s Run, and Trenton Barracks.

(and Martin talks a good game of private sector management skills, cultural change, setting strategic priorities and focusing on “core mission”).

As DEP owned buildings, roads, and infrastructure crumble, a huge unfunded backlog in deferred routine maintenance grows at State Parks, State lands, and historical sites.

Yet, during today’s hike at Baldpate Mountain, I almost expected to see champagne sipping flappers emerge onto DEP’s Green Acres funded patio improvements – check it out:

How can we afford patio improvements at Baldpate when we can’t afford urban parks,Trenton’s history, or deferred maintenance at State Parks?

And even if these other statewide needs didn’t exist, how could  we afford patio improvements when outbuildings are literally falling down at Baldpate? Check it out:

And in just my tiny neck of the woods, the places I love to play in were closed today, due to delays in repairs resulting from Hurricane Irene – way back on August 27.

The D&R Canal Park was still closed due a washout of a section of the Canal, as was Bulls Island State park – but the patio improvements were funded and going like gangbusters

(and I wonder which work will be completed first? Will the patio open before the State Parks?):

Memo to Bob Martin:

Regardless of availability of funds and warped sense of priorities, your “customer service” philosophy has gone too far.

When I go to Walmart and buy some plastic crap I don’t need, I am a customer there.

But when I walk, bike, camp, fish, or hike in a NJ State Park, I am a citizen visitor, or Park user, not a “customer”.

Got that?

So tell your new Parks “customer reps” that they are public servants and park managers.